Last week, at the height of the media frenzy over the White House’s failure to cater to their every whim in informing the MSM about the Vice President’s hunting mishap, I suggested to a reader that if NBC News were serious about providing balanced coverage of the Administration, they would relieve its White House correspondent David Gregory of his current duties and replace him with someone less excitable. Since the White House is the plum berth to which all reporters aspire, it would seem that if a White House correspondent acts is a less than a professional matter, he should be dispatched to a less prestigious post.
Given the growing interest in penguins as result of this wonderful Oscar-nominated documentary (and because their sexual behavior may teach us something about human relationships), I jokingly suggested that they should send him to Antarctica, the native land of these fascinating creatures, to open up an NBC News Bureau there. Now I’m not so sure NBC need dispatch Gregory as far away as that chilly southern continent, but wonder if a serious newsgathering organization would want to keep someone as a White House correspondent who compared the White House to a “rodeo.” Even as he apologized losing his cool at a news briefing, he seemed to retract that apology, indicating that he was not apologizing for his aggressive manner.
More than that, he borrowed a Democratic talking point to describe the White House’s handling of the Vice President’s mishap as “emblematic of the rather secretive style with the press by the vice president.” He sounds more like a flack for the DNC than an unbiased reporter. So, while Mr. Gregory may claim the White House press corps is a “proxy for the American people,” writer Randall H. Nunn finds Mr. Gregory to be rather “a proxy for liberal Democrats, the ‘beautiful and smart’ opinion leaders in Hollywood, the academic community and the mainstream media.” (Via Transterrestial Musings via Instapundit).
No, I don’t think NBC News need dispatch Mr. Gregory to Antarctica, but if this network wishes to show that they’re doing their best to cover the White House fairly, they would do well to offer him another assignment, preferably one that is not so prestigious and one which would enable him to better understand the American people whose proxy he claims to hold. By replacing David Gregory as its White House correspondent, NBC News can show they take seriously the charges that their coverage of the Administration is slanted. They could show as well that they are serious about gathering the news and reporting it fairly rather than spinning it to fit a pre-set agenda.
**UPDATE from GP: Did you know Crazy David is blogging on the UAE/port control issue at NBC’s The Daily Nightly blog?**
Short answer: Yes.
Not only should Crazy David be shipped to Antarctica, but I’ll even help him pack!
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Perhaps he could get a job writing opinion for the Washington Blade like Jeff Gannon, whose bias seemed to be of so little concern to people on the right.
Can I go to Antarctica instead? Not permanently or anything but I think it would be fascinating. And it would be great research for half a dozen projects of mine.
Too bad I’m not still in the military though, because Antarctica, IIRC, has it’s own ribbon and how many people qualify for that? Ha!
Um, Jw, isn’t Gannon a columnist? Columnists are supposed to make their opinions known while reporters are supposed to keep theirs to themselves. Gregory claims to be a reporter.
A better Idea….send the
bastardfine gentleman to Iraq and embed him out on the Syrian frontier without a cell-phone or internet-uplink for six weeks on deep patrols with the Imperial Grunts.Um, Jw, isn’t Gannon a columnist? Columnists are supposed to make their opinions known while reporters are supposed to keep theirs to themselves. Gregory claims to be a reporter.
If only it were that simple. It is common throughout the media for people to serve as both reporters and opinion columnists. (This came up with Dana Milbanks earlier this week.) What is important is that the material be labled. There’s that inbetween space of “news analysis” too.
Surely you don’t think a reporter literally operates free of an opinion. His job is to find the the truth. As a reporter, to do that he ideally submits the questions to all parties concerned and then attempts to retell the narrative, pointing out where there are holes, conflicts, lies, etc. Part of the role of the editor is to make sure that happens. In the NY Times reporting of the run-up to the Iraq invasion, they did not do that, as they admitted in their mea culpa. Anderson Coooper completely stepped into the advocate’s role during Katrina because he saw with his own eyes the suffering the administration was claiming to be relieving. Lucky for him he could turn a camera on it or he would have been accused of lying to discredit George Bush.
An opinion columnist expresses his ideas about policy or interprets findings often in a context broader than a single’s story’s universe. His job is to connect the dots from a particular world view. Charles Krauthammer makes no bones about his neocon perspective and Krugman issues no denial about being a classic liberal.
In any case, there is an old argument that it’s better to disclose bias upfront than attempt to hide it in reporting. The ultimate expression of that is advocacy journalism, which is the role of much of the alternative and gay press. It was also the position of Time’s editors years ago.
Gannon, in his former role, worked as both a reporter and columnist. I don’t know if Gregory does opinion pieces or not. His blog may. But you can’t presume that an adversarial relationship between the reporter and the White House press secretary means there is a strong bias about policy. Gregory’s tantrums have been about McClellan’s evasive answers. I don’t like McClellan’s style as press secretary but I think he does an amazing job considering how unforthcoming he is for his boss and how beleagured he is by the people to whom he’s supposed to furnish information.
His job is to find the the truth.
And if you can’t seem to find it to have an effect on an election, make it up or copy somebody else’s work. We’re all to damn stupid to know better anyhow.
JwGreen, you write, “But you can’t presume that an adversarial relationship between the reporter and the White House press secretary means there is a strong bias about policy.” Actually, I don’t need to presume the evidence is there.
You said Gannon writes opinion for the Washington Blade, then that’s what he does write opinion which means he needs to have one — and a perspective, just as does Mr. Krauthammer.
David Gregory puts himself forward as a reporter. And no, his tantrums don’t make sense, especially given that he should by now be familiar with McClellan’s style given that that mediocre man has been White House press secretary for some time now. But, in the end, all you can do is attack the president. I’m not sure what information he didn’t provide that he could have provided.
And your reference to Anderson Cooper and the White House makes no sense in the context of this post. It wasn’t just the Administration making mistakes in New Orleans. And yes, the suffering was real. But, I’m not sure what purpose it serves to bring that up here.
I agree that the White House needs a better P.R. operation and believe McClellan should be replaced. But, the problem here is Gregory. Even he acknowledges he behaved badly during the White House press conference. In the post, I provide evidence showing Gregory’s bias. Perhaps that amounts to disclosing his bias, thus making a point I hinted at in my piece–that NBC is not an unbiased news source.
David Gregory made clear in his behavior last week that he believed the White House was covering something up. While I have set from the outset on this, the White House bungled this, that error does not excuse the MSM from seeing scandal in a P.R. miscalculation. Or David Gregory from throwing tantrums. That he was so obsessed with this error suggests that the he–and others so obsessed in the White House press corps–are more interested in covering the Administration’s errors than its actions.
If NBC wants to prove that it a balanced source of news, it needs to discipline David Gregory for his behavior last week — and the attitudes he revealed to Chris Matthews — and reassign him to another beat, outside of Washington, but not necessarily so far as Antarctica.
JwGreen at #7, I can’t believe you continue to promote that tired, bankrupt notion of the best Leftist defense of the press is to ascribe noble intent on all in the 4th Estate. No, David Gregory is not the “truth squad” for America anymore than AlGore is the “voice” of America. Although I betting that both would like to have America believe those lies.
A tension has existed between the press and elected leaders in Democrat and GOP WHs. Remember the flurry of WH Press Sec’y trying to bail water while the Clinton Administration was mired in lies, cover ups, secret meetings, and back room deals trading policy for campaign cash? It wasn’t that long ago.
David Gregory’s mistake is the same one made by Dan Rather years ago in covering the Nixon WH. Arrogance and professional advancement parading as news inquiry. In a famous press conference exchange on nat’l TV, Rather asked Nixon if he ever got mad at those reporting negative stories about the Administration. Nixon said, “No. My Mother taught me never to get angry with those you don’t respect.” The reason the Cheney accident continued to receive mean-spirited coverage and wild-assed innuendo is, in large part, because many in the press know the Veep thinks of them as assholes. And rightly so.
Why you see fit to defend arrogance and crass posturing for professional advancement as something noble in the press is hard to fathom.
Dan’s right. David Gregory needs to be censured in some public way –he needs to atone for his mistakes. He ought to be made to meet with the small group of people that still watch NBC for the news and ask them to help him heal.
GPW:
First of all, I’m not defending David Gregory. There’s no need to since he apologized for his tantrum himself.
I’m on deadline myself, so some reflexive repsonses.
I’m not sure why everything discussed here is such an intense argument. I am just giving my point of view and hoping to reach some consensus. I’m not trying to win an argument in a forum in which I am a minority voice.
I brought up Anderson Cooper to demonstrate that a reporter does not necessarily remain free of bias. When Cooper moved into an advocacy posiition, he gave up the appearance of “objectivity” as it’s oddly defined in this space. He actually wasn’t even complaining about the administration. His dramatic moment was when he confronted the Louisiana governor. I should not have said the administration. But this had nothing to do with my poiint, although you seem to be on an absolute witch hunt to turn everything into a liberals vs. Bush fight. Cooper was performing as an advocate, which, as I said, is one way that reporters deal with their own bias — open advocacy.
I’m confused about what “piece” you’re talking about (something you wrote earlier?) I certainly wouldn’t argue that any of the media is unbiased. The question is what you do with the bias. Do you fight it, own it publicly, get hypnotherapy, what? I mean you can go to the campagin contribution sites now and find many reporters’ political alliance.
Don’t get your point about Gannon either. I agreed he’s a columnist, but he worked simultaneously as a columnist and a reporter in the past. It’s quite common. Not sure why you think I wouldn’t want him to have a particular perspective. But the perspective is there whether he’s reporting or editorializing. I’m repeating myself. To compensate for the ineviable bias, as a reporter, you’re supposed to do your best to thoroughly investigate the subject from all sides and then construct the most accurate narrative you can. Your editor, like your therapist, is supposed to help you find your blind spots. Suupposed to.
I’m not sure why CBS needs to discipline Gregory for his tantrum when he’s already apolgoized for it. They could do that and issue claims about objectivity, fairness and baalance, but in your terms they will never be those things — at leas as I understand your definition of them.
I am not trying to be argumentative or bash Bush in this discussion. I have worked n journalism over 20 years and I know how much everyone struggles with this issue. I don’t make it my fulltime work any more because i reached my own level of disgust with the field.
Matty:
I am unaware that I defend arrogance and crass posturing as noble. However, you are talking about a White House that is infamously secretive, passes off PR as news (indeed, GPW seems to conflate the two), tells its opponents to go fuck themselves, and cuts anyone who dares question them out of a seat on the press plane. All of this is documented. So when you call the press arrogant and crass, I’m thinking they are responding (at last) to the White House in kind.
Further, I don’t know why you seem to think I would find it incompatible for a reporter to be effective at his job and still be “rude and crass.” Most top reporters are indeed prima donas like Judy Miller. As is true with politicans, this is both an asset and a liability, depending on the circumstances. (I find it also interesting that you, who are so quick to resort to invective, find this a problem in others.)
I have no idea if the tedious drama made out of the Cheney shooting has to do with the mutual antipathy of the reporters and the veep. Another explanation is that the press has felt duped by the administration and, as everyone has noted, the shooting (like the ports issue) became a veritable parable of the way the administration typically does business. I have no idea.
I do know that most good politicians and effective reporters understand quite well that their appropriate relationship is adversarial. Where you see an unending history of too much enmity, I see a suspension of the adversarial relationship during the first Bush term. (And regardless of what people here say, reporters voted 2 to 1 for Bush in the first election. When you count editors and publishers, it’s 3 to 1.)
So, while you may find it impossible that a White House reporter and Scott McClellan can rip one another to pieces in an interview and then go have a drink together because they understand the adversarial nature of their relationship, I know this to be true in a general way from long experience. It is true that the Bush people are less accepting of this than earlier White Houses but even they acknowledge it.
JwGreen, gosh, you ARE good at putting words into people’s mouth… I need to take a lesson from the pro.
I didn’t say “So, while you may find it impossible that a White House reporter and Scott McClellan can rip one another to pieces in an interview and then go have a drink together because they understand the adversarial nature of their relationship”
Further, “I have no idea if the tedious drama made out of the Cheney shooting has to do with the mutual antipathy of the reporters and the veep.” Sure you do; put down the partisan poisin pen for a second and think. It the accident is a parable (I doubt it) it’s a parable about the unchecked excesses of an insular beltway press consumed with itself and thinking that it sets the national agenda, not the WH, not the Congress, not world events. The press does. Just look at the pompous, pendantic press accounts of Anderson Cooper from NO or anything that either Ted Koppel or Arron Brown ever did.
JwGreen, I think we’ll just have to part company on the opinion of the press –I think they should be exposed for what they are… you think there’s room for improvement.
Give me a break > I’ve been in the room when TeddyK and W ate popcorn and watched movies together.
or
Jw, my point about Gannon is that you referenced his opinion work at the Blade. I have not read his reporting, so can’t comment on that, but do believe his outfit was called GOPUsa or some such, its name tipping people off to its partisan leanings.
I think NBC needs discipline Gregory because his tantrum was unprofessional and to show that it maintains high standards of professionalism. If they did that, it would be one step in the right direction.
Finally, I do think the Administration hurts itself by maintaining a mediocre press spokesman.
We agree that the “March of the Penguins” is an excellent film. However, I’m not sure what message it had that could teach us a thing or two. These birds are procreating. Most GLBT don’t procreate, although we do a wonderful job in simulating it.
Highlightling Gregory as some kind of temperamental reporter who just happens to ask the same questions that (1) everyone is asking, and (2) the DNC is asking, hardly seems worthy of discussion.
If anyone needs to be sent to Antartica, I think it’s the present occupant of the White House. Maybe the cool air will stimulate his mind in new ways, because the old ones simply aren’t working.
This is especially noteworthy (which you’ve obviously decided to ignore), given the outrageous proposition that a company from U.A.E. run our ports. First, the people of the U.A.E. support the WOT by 14%, a little more than blacks supported GWB. Second, given the hostility of the U.A.E. to America and the West, why does our government think it wise to let them operate our ports? You’re not asking these questions, but nearly everyone else is.
So, GWB apparently did not know that his own administration approved this deal. Does he ever get involved in anything, or must it also be read from cue cards? And his minions approved the deal “without vetting,” so even Congress was unaware of this preposterous scheme. So a major security concern by our “security” President occurs without his knowledge? It would be laughable if it were not so serious.
No. It’s not the president’s spokeman that is the problem; it is the president. After all, who appointed who? And if I were the spokesperson for this administration, I too would have fumble my words in order to avoid reporters’ questions. Gawd, can you imagine trying to defend this reckless policy? How?
Also noticed no mention of the Mora Memo in the New Yorker article. I realize the New Yorker is probably not your type of magazine, but the article (which is available online if you can’t afford it) shows GWB to be the meglomaniac that we all knew Richard Nixon to be. This White House gets scarier by the day. (Oh, that’s why you haven’t mentioned it.)
Sigh. Matty. I used the word may in the sense that you might say that, not that you did. You didn’t. But many with your perspective, who make much of open antipathy, do argue that. For those of us involved in the adversarial dance, it’s part of what we have to go through. I’m not sure what you want things to be like.
I don’t disagree that the parable can be extended to the the press’ behavior. Nor do I disagree that the press attempts to exercise a heavy hand in estasblishing national agendas. Where we would likely disagree is on the question of whether the WH and the press have radically different agendas.
GPW: There were two outifts: Talon News and GOPUSA. My original, apparently poorly exexpressed point was that Gregory and Gannon, both working as journalists, reveal tehir bias about something. One does it by having a tantrum and the other does it by lobbing softballs. Is the problem their demeanor or the bias itself?
I can go either way on Gregory being disciplined. I know it certainly won’t change anything. But I belong to the school that it’s better for people to be upfront about their bias than pretend to disguise it or make extravagant claims to objectivity. The emphasis on infotainment has certainly aggravated this and is one reason, as Matty seems to note, that journalists have become performers in the stories they report.
GPW: If you think Gregory’s investigation into the U.A.E. deal that has ALL of Congress howling — in fact, Republicans didn’t even show up today for the “vetting” that’s supposed to happen before, not after, contracts are entered — is just further evidence that Gregory prejudice against GWB? The whole country is ballistic about the absurdity/outrageousnes of this deal. And the Stubborn Ass of a President, despite hues and cries from everyone, everywhere, decides to defend this bizare agreement, even though it was done without his prior knowledge (who is running this government?). Now, if you don’t think a looney is absently running things, think again.
Um, Stephen, did any other president personally know about such deals?
And did I mention anything in my post about what Gregory said about the UAE deal? So, once again, it appears your criticizing me not based on my words, but what you imagine me saying. (And given what I said in this post about Gregory, if he reported on this deal, I would have to confirm it with an unbiased source to confirm its accuracy.)
So far, no one has produced any information to show that the government did not follow proper procedures in vetting this deal.
And once again, you provide angry words filled with invective and only the facts taken out of context so as to appear most damaging to the president.
Dan at #20, “So far, no one has produced any information to show that the government did not follow proper procedures in vetting this deal.”
Aren’t you confusing facts with the “right” of others to engage in irresponsible speculation?
I wonder if the folks concerned about the “clear threat to nat’l security in turning over our ports to terrorist-friendly Arabs” were the same ones last week spinning speculation about a beer at lunch into “Was Cheney Drunk When He Nearly Murdered Whittington”?
Does anyone ever get the impression that if George W. Bush ever personally discovered a way to get limitless, non-polluting energy from seawater… Stephen’s response would be a delusional rant about how it was all a sinister conspiracy between Bush and the Seawater Cartel to drain the oceans for his neocon buddies?
I KNEW Bush was against the environment! What a crazy and sinister idea to drain the oceans, consume limitless quantities of energy and create more heat to bring on global warming. Where did you hear this, VdaK? Did this come out of those secret and illegal Cheney talks in 2001? I think I read something like this on MoveOnDotOrg’s piece about “Naval Observatory Drive Memo: Downing Street Memo Part Deux”
We have to have MichaelMoore get the Baldwin brothers set for the film. It’ll make millions by talking the truth. I knew the President was no good; this proves it.
You know, Matt… we should pick an upcoming thread an announce a “rant like Stephen/DSH” contest and see who among us can do the best parody.
(Or, would that be too “mean” for the delicate, easily-offended sensibilities of rag and JwGreen?)
Probably that’d be over the top.
I’d be happy if Bruce would publish a reference guide for keeping track of all the changing nom de plume of the dissembling GayLeft commentators in these threads.
(Or, would that be too “mean” for the delicate, easily-offended sensibilities of rag and JwGreen?)
Comment by V the K
After 20 years of writing for a living, and mainly commentary, my sensibiliites are hardly delicate, V. But I know what encourages discourse and consensus and it’s not your kind of personal insulting. I guess you realize it’s not because people aren’t capable of replying in the same way that they don’t. And I’m betting if they did, you woiuld begin complaining about how the left can only resort to personal insult.
I think your enemies list is a great idea and so true to Republican history.
JwGreen, you show your TRUE liberal GayLeft colors with this canard
“I think your enemies list is a great idea”
when all I suggested was to have Bruce list a reference guide of the dissembling sneaks who modify their handle here every other week… how you get to a 1970’s Nixonian Era Enemies List out of that is beyond reason. What implusive knee-jerk collection of fantasy brought you to that?
Oh wait, it’s probably the same impulse of the Left who see wiretapping intern’l calls from/to known terrorists as a violation of the terrorists’ right to privacy and might, by exercise, lead investigators to known radicals in the Left? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Holy crap, Matty. It was a joke.
You really should try taking your finger off the trigger for a few minutes every now and then.
JwGreen, holy crap, dude! Wow –I was just kidding too! Go figure.
You really need to take that finger off the trigger and lighten up a bit. Take your own advice. Afterall, you’ve pleaded you’re the professional communicator, writer and commentator of note after only 20 years… who knows how to encourage discussion etc.
I think you need to find what encourages discussion ’cause it sure isn’t the one-note, ponderously plodding preaching from your end of the aisle. Nor is it the sharp, often times verbose and lecturing tomes from me.
Going back ON topic for a second, I think David Gregory is missing a very serious issue of his –and other WH Press Corps– credibility with the W Administration leadership… if the WH has contempt for the press and the press senses it, wouldn’t you or anyone else who is a professional ask the important question of Why? How’d it get this bad? How do we/I fix it?
In all the Left and Press rumblings, no one within the target bullseye has asked that question openly… why is that Bush, Cheney and others hold them in contempt? Could it be that the Administration knows –as did RR and Mike Deaver who crafted the “skip the beltway press, we’ll take our message straight to our audience– that the WH Press Corps is biased, anti-conservative? Or is it that the Administration appreciates the press will only look for bad and not report the good because the former sells? One only need look at Iraq coverage for validation of that opinion.
I’d like to see one of those now-famous Fred Friendly styled panels at Harvard, filled with notables from each perspective, discuss and debate what’s bloody wrong with the Press?
In what moonbatty liberal hellhole is everybody as anti-American as Gregory?
I suggest you leave that gay ghetto and talk to some real Americans.
IJwGreen, holy crap, dude! Wow –I was just kidding too! Go figure.
Riiiiiiiight.
You really need to take that finger off the trigger and lighten up a bit. Take your own advice. Afterall, you’ve pleaded you’re the professional communicator, writer and commentator of note after only 20 years… who knows how to encourage discussion etc.
More of the same. I asked you elsewhere to show me where i’ve resorted to your kind of quick-draw invective. Since you can’t, you just pile a little more on, adding the fictitious “of note,” which I never claimed. Yeah yeah, tell me how I imply it through my tone. Zzzzzz.
think you need to find what encourages discussion ’cause it sure isn’t the one-note, ponderously plodding preaching from your end of the aisle. Nor is it the sharp, often times verbose and lecturing tomes from me.
And more. I don’t think it’s inappropriate in discussion of media to bring up my own experience, but that’s not really the problem. You think anyone who is even remotely liberal is an idiot. If I shared the same opinion of all conservatives, I might be tempted to join your style of rhetoric.
I have no fantasy about actually changing the tone of discussion here. It’s obviously the way the two Patriots like it. Nor am I interested in pursuing this latest turn of “I know you are but what am I?”
So carry on.
I read the Blog Nice site I found and I bookmarked the site… Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.